Robert’s blog (1.0)

John C. Dvorak wrote:

The locals will tell you flat out that they cannot afford expensive software, and then they tend to go off on anti-Microsoft rants. I've thought about this and am totally convinced that the piracy is tolerated because it keeps users on the Microsoft teat even though the illegal copies generate no income for legitimate publishers. The approach is like fighting a forest fire with a backfire. In this case, the forest fire is Linux. As long as Southeast Asia and China can get Microsoft Office XP for $1, they are not about to switch to Linux anytime soon. Stop the bootlegging, and then economics alone will turn the whole area over to Linux in the blink of an eye.

There's a couple of interesting ideas here.

First is the idea that Microsoft tolerates piracy because it actually works for them rather than against them. Dvorak makes it sound kind of sinister, but I think it's merely one of the practical business decisions that has put Microsoft where it is.

(I make my Will save and avoid going into a lengthy analysis at this time.)

Also, it isn't so much about battling Linux. Linux is only one of the many threats Microsoft faces. Including the somewhat invisible threat of those who stay out of the business because Microsoft is strong.

The other interesting part is that first sentence. The people pirating and using Microsoft products are anti-Microsoft.

Despite what some may believe and sounds I may occasionally make, I'm not really anti-Microsoft. Yet the only Microsoft products I use are one copy of XP (not my choice), one copy of Windows 2000 (which gets less use than my Linux workstation), a Microsoft optical mouse, and--on very rare occasions--Visio. Why do anti-Microsoft people continue to use Microsoft products?

On an almost related note, Roblimo wrote a funny article about switching from Linux to Windows.

I'm tired of interviewing computer programmers with three page resumés that don't know the basics. I'm not talking about not knowing minutiae or being tricked by trick questions. (I might have been one of those overly tough interviewers once, but I'm well past that now.) I'm talking basics.

Battleground God is an thought provoking little web quiz. Don't take it too seriously, though.

I got through with one bitten bullet and one direct hit.

My bitten bullet was that I was saying that rational discourse about God was not possible. Really, though, I was saying that rational discourse about God might not be possible. =)

My direct hit was about whether one's beliefs about the external world could be justifiably based on a firm, inner conviction. I think, however, that not all beliefs are equal and that "justifiability" is a continuum.

I can't stop watching Discovery HD Theatre. A few days ago, I had so many channels, it'd take 30 minutes to figure out what you want to watch. Then you'd have to start over again, because all the programs you'd considered are over already.

Now, it's like there's only one channel. It doesn't matter what's on, because whatever it may be is beautiful, interesting, and in HD. I mean, we've had most of the local broadcast channels in HD. On them, only some the primetime lineup is HD, but HD doesn't really enhance a sitcom. (Plus, we still don't have HD for the local broadcast station we watch the most.)

Now if only the DVR handled HD. (And if only I could watch The West Wing in HD.)

I've just finished reading The Savage Caves by T.H. Lain*. It is the first book of the Dungeons & Dragons Core Series featuring the iconic characters from third edition D&D.

I'm not sure why I bought it. Except for the first two Dragonlance trilogies and Spellfire, I've avoided D&D books. Maybe it's just because I wanted to know more about the iconic characters than the brief glimpses of them that the rulebooks give you.

At the most basic level, I expect a book with the Dungeons & Dragons emblazoned on the cover to do a much better job at living within the rules of the game. It's one thing to contradict the rules in the interest of making a better story, but there were far too many minor contradictions that--if corrected--would not impact the story.

(A side rant: Many D&D groups are willing to ignore the rules on occasion in order to allow a more interesting course of events. So, I suppose we should allow authors of D&D novels similar license. Personally, however, if I were writing a D&D novel, I'd take it as a stimulating challenge to avoid contradicting the rules for any reason. If I thought that contradicting the rules was going to make the story more interesting, then that would mean I hadn't tried hard enough to make it interesting without contradicting the rules.)

Beyond that, I expect the first book in a series with the title Dungeons & Dragons Core to better reflect the spirit of the game. Having the "PCs" split up throughout much of the book, switching to telling the story from an "NPC's" viewpoint, and not choosing a more traditional and iconic monster to feature all keep this book farther from the spirit of the game than it could have been.

Unfortunately, I'm better at analysing faults than virtues, so don't let the volume of text above mislead you. Overall, I enjoyed the book. Just the sort of light read I needed after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

*Apparently T.H. Lain is a psuedonym. Each of the books in this series were actually written by different ghost writers.

Previously, I wrote that I wouldn't be buying D&D 3.5. Truth is--and I knew this all along--I probably will buy the 3.5 books eventually. I just wasn't going to rush out and by them as soon as they were released like 3.0. Who knows, though. At this rate maybe they'll have 4e and/or 4.5e out before I'm ready to buy more D&D core books. =)

Thankfully, Wizards of the Coast has updated the SRD to 3.5, so I can evaluate and even play the new version without buying the books. (Why do I say I'll probably buy them eventually if I have the SRD? There are many reasons, but that's a whole other topic.)

So, since it is the current edition of D&D, I've been reading the SRD a lot, if for no other reason than to keep up with the conversations on rec.games.frp.dnd.

First, let me mention some of the things I like about 3.5:

I like way weapons are categorized by the size of the user. With the rules available for 3.0 in several places for scaling weapons, I'd pretty much had begun to think of weapons in this manner anyway. I like the penalty for using a weapon of the wrong size.

I like many of the dwarf's new abilities: less affected by encumberence, stability, and weapon familiarity. Some people say that dwarves are too good now, but I find most of the racial abilities to be bland and uninteresting. Now, I'm looking forward to playing a dwarf.

I like that a character's strength bonus now gets added to damage when using a sling. Slings are really more like thrown weapons than the other non-thrown ranged weapons. I also like that the halfling's bonus with thrown weapons has also been extended to the sling.

I like that druids are no longer prohibited from using all but a few weapons. (That restriction was particularly annoying for multiclassed druids.) Between this and the weapon based on user size change, my next gnome or halfling druid will have the opportunity to use whatever weapon I think fits my character concept.

I like that druids can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally spells. I'm still not sure that I like clerics being able to spontaneously cast the unaptly named Cure spells, but this doesn't suffer the same problems.

I like that druid animal companions now improve with the character. It was annoying to suddenly want to dismiss your animal companion after gaining a level. This was exasperated by the speed at which low-level characters gain levels.

I like many of the new feats.

Now, what do I not like?

I'm annoyed that the multiclassing at first level rules were dropped. I really liked this. When I have a character concept that requires multiclassing, I often really don't want to spend first level as only one of those classes.

I think the paladin's warhorse that lives in a "celestial realm" and appears and disappears on command is just silly. D&D already stretches my suspension of disbelief almost to its breaking point as it is. This is just too much.

While I like the way weapons are categorized by the size of the user, I'm not so sure I like that the small reach weapons still have reach.

I don't like that the druid's animal companion is now restricted to a certain list of animals. Actually, I'd be happy with the list if there was more on it. (No cat!)

I don't have a strong opinion on most of the other changes. There is one thing I'm ambivalent about, but which I'd like to have a strong opinion about:

I have mixed feelings about the new square face for all creatures. It was kind of weird having creatures that sort of had facing in a game that didn't have facing. The square face can be kind of weird too. At first, it seems that the square face actually makes things more complex rather than simplifying. (Witness: The squeezing rules.) I don't know, though.

There's probably still an awful lot I haven't noticed yet. In the final analysis, though, I think I do like 3.5 better than 3.0. I've already got a couple character ideas now that I'd rather realize under the 3.5 rules instead of 3.0.

If I ran NASA, or--rather--the whole US space program/industry...

NASA's first priority would be robotic exploration missions. As romantic and useful as a human in space can be, a robot can be nearly as effective for much less money. We've been putting people into low Earth orbit since the 1960s, but we haven't yet sent a probe to Pluto.

While I liked the smaller, cheaper, faster philosophy; I think there is a place for the more traditional big, expensive, slow probes. There should be a balance between the two.

NASA has done very well in this area in the past, but it should become priority number one.

NASA's second priority would be developing technology. Again, NASA has done quite a lot of this in the past, but it should be a driving force. After fully funding & staffing the robotic exporation missions, they should fully fund & staff projects to develop new propulsion systems, a single stage to orbit vehicle, and other new technologies.

NASA must also be more dedicated to transitioning technologies to the private sector. They are actually very good at this, but there are some glaring counter examples. NASA should not be operating launch services. They should be collecting royalties from private launch services to which they've licensed technology.

Only once those priorities are funded, if there is anything left, does the manned program get funds. If we are going to put people into space, then we should be doing more than putting them in low Earth orbit. There's only so much you can learn from putting people into LEO, and--between Russia & the US--it's been done to death. We need to start moving around more. Not just for exploration, but to begin to utilize the resources there (instead of lifting resources off the Earth) and to develop the infrastructure for people to live and work in space. Otherwise, we're just putting people into space for fun and a tiny bit of science, and that isn't worth the price tag.

While a heavy lift vehicle can be necessary, it doesn't need to be reusable or in constant operation. The space shuttle--if not retired--should be reserved for putting big things in orbit. We should have (should already have had) a smaller, reusable vehicle for shuttling people to and from orbit.

A space station needs better goals than to learn about the long term effects of hanging out in low Earth orbit. While there is more to learn in that area, it isn't so much that it justifies the cost. This is especially true if you don't have another goal you're working toward that requires long term stays in low Earth orbit!

I've already written here about my own concerns about Mel Gibson's The Passion. All the controversy about the film, however, is about whether it is anti-Semitic.

But Jewish leaders say it suggests Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, which could trigger anti-Semitic attacks.

Yahoo! News - 'The Passion' Wins Vatican Endorsement

Let's think about this for a moment. If Christians believe Christ died to redeem us, why would believing that Jews were responsible for Christ's death result in anti-Semitism among Christians? Christ dying was a good thing.

In roleplaying games, how should interpersonal skills like diplomacy, debate, or gather information be handled?

As referee, I encourage players to roleplay such things. The player should, in character, make his argument or ask his question. When it comes time to determine the outcome, however, the dice are rolled.

I do not give modifiers to the roll based on how "well" the player roleplayed or how reasonable his argument was. Firstly, I do not want to judge the quality of someone's roleplaying. Secondly, the outcome should be based on the character's abilities, not the player's.

In the end it is a game. Speaking in character--which many people consider the heart of roleplaying--should be done for the enjoyment. A player shouldn't be made to feel that his in character speech is being judged or that his character's and the party's success depends upon how "well" he speaks. Rather, the player should feel free to proceed wholeheartedly and play his role however feels natural for him.

White Wolf is suing Sony Pictures claiming that the movie Underworld violates copyrights of Vampire: The Masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, The Love of Monsters, and other works. The press release. The complaint in PDF format.

Personally, I don't think there has been a copyright violation here. (The non-copyright claims may be another story.) That whole "derivative works" bit of copyright law scares and annoys me, though. But, let's put the legal issues aside for a moment.

Should a company or individual who didn't write a sentence of the script, didn't build a set, didn't find a prop, didn't act a scene, didn't hold a mic, didn't operate a camera, didn't implement a special f/x, etc, etc, etc, be able to claim compensation from a movie? I don't think so.

Even if they did rip the plot directly, lots of people invested their own time, energy, and/or money in making the movie. They've earned any money they make, and White Wolf's indirect contribution--if any--was microscopic in comparison.

I haven't bought a White Wolf product since they dumped Ars Magica. I'd been considering picking up Mage or Adventure. This is just the kind of thing, however, that makes me want to spend my money elsewhere.